Attack of the Judaizers

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
I haven't read any place in scripture that Moses was given laws differing from God's laws. Do you have scripture that says Moses wrote laws down that were not from God?
Do you think I said Moses was given laws differing from God's laws?
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
That is a Judaizing gloss, the food laws were not about health, but holiness.

They were regulations of defilement, as in other defilement regulations, to teach the meaning
of spiritual defilement, and holiness
as separation from spiritual defilement.

We know they were not about health because God gave mankind everything that lives and moves for food in Ge 9:3, and the NT goes back to that standard (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14; 1Tim 4:3-5; Heb 9:9-10; Col 2:16-17).

The same foods were healthy prior to Leviticus, unhealthy in Leviticus, and then healthy again in the NT.

There is no Biblical basis for the Mosaic food laws as prescriptions for health,
in light of Ge 9:3 and Mk 7:19, etc.
And what is your basis for a holiness interpretation in this passage?

Gen 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.
Gen 7:2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female;

There is not instruction about holiness here.
In fact, there is no instruction about what clean and unclean is. It was well known at that time.
Agreed.

The food laws were given through Moses in Leviticus, and repeated in Deuteronomy.
 
Last edited:

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
Agreed.

The food laws were given through Moses in Leviticus, and repeated in Deuteronomy.
Yet they existed at the time of the flood. They are not about ceremony, they are about the proper fuel to use in the human body.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Yet they existed at the time of the flood. They are not about ceremony,
they are about the proper fuel
to use in the human body.
That is human thinking with no Biblical basis.

First of all, food regulations were never given as the basis of a covenant.

Secondly, please show where all the food commands given in Leviticus were given prior to Leviticus.
 
Mar 4, 2013
7,761
107
0
What matters is how Scripture sees it, and that is not how God's laws are presented in Scripture.


None of God's laws are Moses' laws.

Where did you get this erroneous dichotomy?

Only because God gave them to Moses for Israel, are they called Mosaic laws,
as distinct from other OT laws God gave, such as to Abraham in Ge 17:1 and Ge 17:10-11 (circumcision).

It's not complicated.

Let's not divide what God has joined in his laws.
I haven't read any place in scripture that Moses was given laws differing from God's laws. Do you have scripture that says Moses wrote laws down that were not from God?
Do you think I said Moses was given laws differing from God's laws?
Yes. It did appear such. It's terminology I guess, but after seeing what you were saying I can see where you are coming from. Reading back through the posts, the ten commandments are talked about saying God wrote them on stone. I differ in that Moses wrote them down first as we read through Exodus 20 thru 23, and onto the next few verses in chapter 14.

Exodus 24:4 (KJV)
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Then we read in Exodus 24:12 (KJV)
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.

Now granted, there are 3 references in the Bible that say that the ten commandments were written on stone but in the original Hebrew it doesn't read as in the KJV

I think this is important to know

Exodus 34:28 (KJV)
[SUP]28 [/SUP]And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words.

Deuteronomy 4:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
13 And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even the ten words; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Now after Moses broke the stones God wrote, then Moses had to do it himself in stone. So I asked myself what were the ten words?

Deuteronomy 10:4 (KJV)

[SUP]4 [/SUP]And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.
4 And He wrote on the tables according to the first writing, the ten words, which the LORD spoke unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them unto me.

So here is what I found the ten words to mean.

אֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִי means the top 10 things

The ten commandments are only a part, and not meant to be separated from any other writings. The Hebrew quantity of ten refers to Testamony and Law of responsibility. I'll write more later when I have time.
 
Last edited:

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
That is human thinking with no Biblical basis.First of all, food regulations were never given as the basis of a covenant.Secondly, please show where all the food commands given in Leviticus were given prior to Leviticus.
Actually, clean and unclean were well know before the flood...Gen 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. Gen 7:2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; This si not human reasoning, it is a matter of the Biblical record.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Actually, clean and unclean were well know before the flood...Gen 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. Gen 7:2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; This si not human reasoning, it is a matter of the Biblical record.
We don't know if the distinction was about food, or sacrifice, or both.

So we don't know if it relates to the food laws of Leviticus, or not.

Not knowing either, it is irrelevant to Leviticus.
 
Last edited:

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
We don't know if the distinction was about food, or sacrifice, or both.

So we don't know if it relates to the food laws of Leviticus, or not.

Not knowing either, it is irrelevant to Leviticus.
You don't, but it is not really difficult for some of us to understand that there are clean and unclean animals. Either there are, or there aren't. Bible says there are.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
You don't, but
it is not really difficult for some of us to understand that there are clean and unclean animals.
Either there are, or there aren't. Bible says there are.
Nor is it difficult for me to understand either, yes there were unclean animals.

But that is not the issue.
The issue is whether the distinction was about health.

We know the distinction for sacrifices was not about health.

And we know the distinctions in Lev were not about health, for the same foods were clean until Lev,
then unclean until the NT, when they were clean again (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14).

Healthy food (Ge 9:3) does not become unhealthy (Lev), and then healthy again (NT).

So yes, there were clean and unclean animals in the OT prior to Lev,
but we have absolutely no Biblical basis for saying it was about health,
either before, during or after the Levitical food laws,
particularly when Ge 9:3 and Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14 show the contrary.

So that the distinction was about health is a human notion, not a Biblical notion.
 
Last edited:
K

Karraster

Guest
Scavenger animals and sea scavengers are nasty. Science agrees. Swine eats filth and that changes to flesh on their bones within 4 hours. Yuk. They are definitely not clean, and instructions not to eat them are for our benefit, as with all the other instructions. Just because we don't understand and don't want to obey, we go to all lengths to make null and void the Torah.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Scavenger animals and sea scavengers are nasty. Science agrees. Swine eats filth and that changes to flesh on their bones within 4 hours. Yuk. They are definitely not clean, and instructions not to eat them are for our benefit, as with all the other instructions. Just because we don't understand and don't want to obey, we go to all lengths to make null and void the Torah.
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Do you not do the same in placing yourself above the revelation spoken by the Son in these last days
(Heb 1:1-2), through the NT writers in Mk 7:19; Ro 14:4; 1Tim 4:3-5, etc.?
 
K

Karraster

Guest
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Do you not do the same in placing yourself above the revelation spoken by the Son in these last days
(Heb 1:1-2), through the NT writers in Mk 7:19; Ro 14:4; 1Tim 4:3-5, etc.?
What? The 2 are not mutually exclusive. No need to call me names Elin. Is that loving? Is that good fruit?
 

JesusLives

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2013
14,551
2,173
113
What matters is how Scripture sees it, and that is not how God's laws are presented in Scripture.


None of God's laws are Moses' laws.

Where did you get this erroneous dichotomy?

Only because God gave them to Moses for Israel, are they called Mosaic laws,
as distinct from other OT laws God gave, such as to Abraham in Ge 17:1 and Ge 17:10-11 (circumcision).

It's not complicated.

Let's not divide what God has joined in his laws.
We agree None of God's laws are Moses' laws.

But I think what most people don't get is that God's laws were His laws before Moses even existed. I'm just talking about the ones He wrote with His finger in stone not all the sacrificial laws that were fulfilled when Jesus died and was our sacrifice for our sins. You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe - I have that right too. God calls it the power of choice. So I guess we agree to disagree.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
Elin said:
Karraster said:
Scavenger animals and sea scavengers are nasty. Science agrees. Swine eats filth and that changes to flesh on their bones within 4 hours. Yuk. They are definitely not clean, and instructions not to eat them are for our benefit, as with all the other instructions. Just because we don't understand and don't want to obey,
we go to all lengths to make null and void the Torah.
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Do you not do the same in placing yourself above the revelation spoken by the Son in these last days
(Heb 1:1-2), through the NT writers in Mk 7:19; Ro 14:4; 1Tim 4:3-5, etc.?
What? The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
Well then, according to your meaning, God said the same foods were healthy (Ge 9:3), then unhealthy (Lev), and then healthy again (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14; 1Tim 4:3-5, etc.)

How can declaring the "unhealthy" foods of Lev to be "healthy" in the NT (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14;
1Tim 4:3-5) possibly be for our benefit?

They can't. . .because it's not about our health benefit.

You've got some reckoning to do with the NT word of God.

No need to call me names Elin. Is that loving? Is that good fruit?
Do you see any difference between that and labeling the NT (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14, 1Tim 4:3-5, etc.)
as "going to all lengths to make null and void the Torah"?
 
Last edited:

JesusLives

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2013
14,551
2,173
113
That is human thinking with no Biblical basis.

First of all, food regulations were never given as the basis of a covenant.

Secondly, please show where all the food commands given in Leviticus were given prior to Leviticus.
From God's mouth to Adam's ears

Genesis 1:29 And God said, See I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.

No meat mentioned until after the flood - Why would God have to write it in a book as law when He could talk to Adam and Eve directly? So no not written down but God said it - I think that is good enough.
 
Sep 1, 2013
543
8
0
Yet they existed at the time of the flood. They are not about ceremony, they are about the proper fuel to use in the human body.
Right after the flood God said to Noah, Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs."

Every moving thing that lives means every moving thing that lives not every moving thing with the exception of the unclean moving things that were pointed out in Leviticus.
 
K

Karraster

Guest
Well then, according to your meaning, God said the same foods were healthy (Ge 9:3), then unhealthy (Lev), and then healthy again (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14; 1Tim 4:3-5, etc.)

How can declaring the "unhealthy" foods of Lev to be "healthy" in the NT (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14;
1Tim 4:3-5) possibly be for our benefit?

They can't. . .because it's not about our health benefit.

You've got some reckoning to do with the NT word of God.


Do you see any difference between that and labeling the NT (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14, 1Tim 4:3-5, etc.)
as "going to all lengths to make null and void the Torah"?
I don't know if this is deliberately designed to confuse people, but you sure confuse me. I don't have a bone to pick with you, nor was my original statement anything like you are making it out to be. This should be the attack of the lawless thread, cos that's what it is.
 

JesusLives

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2013
14,551
2,173
113
Nor is it difficult for me to understand either, yes there were unclean animals.

But that is not the issue.
The issue is whether the distinction was about health.

We know the distinction for sacrifices was not about health.

And we know the distinctions in Lev were not about health, for the same foods were clean until Lev,
then unclean until the NT, when they were clean again (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14).

Healthy food (Ge 9:3) does not become unhealthy (Lev), and then healthy again (NT).

So yes, there were clean and unclean animals in the OT prior to Lev,
but we have absolutely no Biblical basis for saying it was about health,
either before, during or after the Levitical food laws,
particularly when Ge 9:3 and Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14 show the contrary.

So that the distinction was about health is a human notion, not a Biblical notion.
Please go read chapter one of Daniel

verse 9 - But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's delicacies nor with the wine which he drank; therefor he requested of the chief of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. (his body)

verse 12 - Please test your servants for ten days, and let them give us vegetables to eat and water to drink.
verse 13 - Then let our appearance be examined before you, and the appearance of the young men who eat the portion of the king's delicacies and as you see fit, so deal with your servants.
verse 15 - And at the end of ten days their features appeared better and fatter in flesh than all the young men who ate the portion of the king's delicacies.

As much as you'd like to say it is not about health - in this case the Bible disagrees with you. Daniel was after Leviticus by the way. Please trust me the clean and unclean were given for health reasons too in Leviticus.
 

john832

Senior Member
May 31, 2013
11,365
186
63
Nor is it difficult for me to understand either, yes there were unclean animals.

But that is not the issue.
The issue is whether the distinction was about health.

We know the distinction for sacrifices was not about health.

And we know the distinctions in Lev were not about health, for the same foods were clean until Lev,
then unclean until the NT, when they were clean again (Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14).
You sure about that?

Lev 11:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth:

Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;

Lev 11:8 Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.

Lev 11:11 They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.

etc. down through the chapter...

Lev 11:47 to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.' "

There is not one word about sacrifices, although about every other verse specifies this is to eat or not to eat. It is about what is fit to put into your mouth, not what is acceptable on the altar. There are clean animals that are not acceptable as sacrifices. God spells out specifically what sacrifices may be offered, but there is not one word mentioned here about sacrifices.

Extrapolation doesn't work here.

Healthy food (Ge 9:3) does not become unhealthy (Lev), and then healthy again (NT).
I could not agree more. Clean meat does not become unclean and unclean meat does not become clean. In the NT, it refers to what is clean to eat...

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;
1Ti 4:5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Meats that are set apart by the word of God. We find that in Lev 11 and Deut 14. Remember, Paul is referencing the Old Testament here, the New Testament was not the scriptures that Timothy knew from a child...

2Ti_3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


So yes, there were clean and unclean animals in the OT prior to Lev,
but we have absolutely no Biblical basis for saying it was about health,
either before, during or after the Levitical food laws,
particularly when Ge 9:3 and Mk 7:19; Ro 14:14 show the contrary.


Please show me one reference about clean and unclean that is about sacrificesk in Gen 7:2 and Lev 11. You keep quoting Gen 9:3 as a blanket statement that anything that wiggles or crawls or slips around is food. Would you like to eat some fugu? That is a roll of the dice. Every year a few people die from it. You have a better than 50 over 100 chance with that. Do you like to gamble.

Now Gen 9:3 again. Everything? How about some poison dart frog? You are now in the range of 0 over 100 survivability. If one is eating clean meats, that issue NEVER comes up does it?


So that the distinction was about health is a human notion, not a Biblical notion.
Sure it is, again, if you really believe that Gen 9:3 references everything, try some poison dart frog or giant cane toad.
 
Last edited:

Hizikyah

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
11,634
372
0
No sir.

It is the Ten Commandments, the basis of the Sinatic Covenant, which they broke, that is written on hearts.
The Torah does not mean 10 Commandments.

The Torah is what is to be written on the hearts of those accepting Messiah.

It is simply the Instructions from Yahweh.

Originally Posted by Hizikyah

The torah that is supposed to be written on peoples hearts is 613+ Laws, the oral law created by Jews/rabbis/pharisees has 1,000s of made up laws.

Yeremyah 31:33, "After those days, says Yahweh: I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; minds, and I will be their Father, and they will be My people."

8451. torah - torah: direction, instruction, law Original Word: תּוֹרָה Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: torah
Phonetic Spelling: (to-raw') Short Definition: law